As I recall, just after the Clintons were elected (remember we got two for one) a questionaire went out to military personnel asking them if they would be willing to fire on their fellow American citizens. I believe it was related to the confiscation of firearms.

The following survey was given to U.S. Marines at the 29 Palms Marine Corps base in California: DD Form 3206 (Rev 2/96)

JOINT SERVICES TRAINING COMBAT ARMS SURVEY

Part A (Confidential when filled in)

This questionnaire is to gather data concerning the attitudes of combat trained personnel with regard to non-traditional missions. All responses are confidential and official. Write your answers directly on the form. In Part II, place an "X" in the space provided for your response.

31. The U.S. runs a field training exercise. U.N. combat troops should be allowed to serve in U.S. combat units during these exercises under U.S. command and control.

32. The U.N. runs a field training exercise. U.S. combat troops under U.S. command and control should serve in U.N. combat units during these exercises

33. The U.N. runs a field training exercise. U. S. combat troops should serve under U.N. command and control.

34. U.S. combat troops should participate in U.N.missions as long as the U.S. has full command and control.

35. U.S. combat troops should participate in U.N. missions under U.N. command and control.

36. U.S. combat troops should be commanded by U.N. officers and non- commissioned officers at battalion, wing and company levels while performing U.N. missions.

37. It would make no difference to me to have U.N. soldiers as members of my team.

38. It would make no difference to me to take orders from a U.N. company or squadron commander.

39. I feel the President of the U.S. has the authority to pass his responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief to the U.N. Secretary General.

40. I feel there is no conflict between my oath of office and serving as a U.N. soldier.

41. I feel my unit's combat effectiveness would not be affected by performing huminatarian and peace keeping missions for the U.N.

42. I feel a designated unit of U.S. combat soldiers should be permanently assigned to the command and control of the U.N.

43. I would be willing to volunteer for assignment to a U.S. combat unit under a U.N. commander.

44. I would like U.N. member countries, including the U.S., to give the U.N. all the soldiers necessary to maintain world peace.

45. I would swear to the following code:

"I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation's way of life. I swear and affirm to support and defend the Charter of the United Nations and I am prepared to give my life in its defense."

46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-approved firearms. A 30-day amnesty period is established for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of irregular citizen groups and defiant individuals refuse to turn over their firearms to authority.

Consider the following statement:

"I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government."

On 08 April 1995, The RESISTER conducted a telephone interview with LCDR Earnest Guy Cunningham, USN, regarding his Combat Arms Survey given to 300 U.S. Marine Corps combat trained marines at Twenty-Nine Palms California on 10 May 1994.

The survey was given in support of his Naval Postgraduate School master's thesis; Peacekeeping and U.N. Operational Control: A Study of Their Effect on Unit Cohesion. (Before joining the Navy, LCDR Cunningham was a Special Forces medic. After the usual exchange of bona fides, and waltzing the Name Dropping Dance, sufficient trust was established for a frank discussion.)

For the record, we are convinced of LCDR Cunningham's sincerity in his claim that the sole purpose of his thesis was to explore what effect Operations Other Than War would have on small unit cohesion. We discussed several constitutional issues with him, as well as the results of his survey. Although there are those who still vilify LCDR Cunningham, we found him to be strongly opposed to many of the non-traditional missions contained in his survey, and a staunch defender of the Constitution.

One of the first questions we asked LCDR Cunningham pertained to the timing of his questionnaire. There had been rumors of a questionnaire of similar content being administered to U.S. Navy SEAL Team Six in the fall of 1993, and the February 1994 issue of MODERN GUN magazine publicized the existence of such a questionnaire.

LCDR Cunningham denied that was his questionnaire and maintained that the first, and only, time his questionnaire was given at Twenty-Nine Palms of 10 May 1994. When asked if he had made test versions, and conducted test runs of his questionnaire to refine his product, he replied that he had not.

When asked if he was aware of any other person, or organization, conducting similar research, he replied that he was aware of no such questionnaire or research. (This raises the question; "Who, or what agency, was surveying special operations personnel to determine if they would participate in firearms confiscation?")

Our conversation then ranged over the construction and content of the Combat Arms Survey. LCDR Cunningham stated that the Combat Arms Survey was specifically designed to elicit responses indicative to the effect the described non-traditional missions, under either U.S or U.N. control, would have on cohesion of small units engaged in such operations.

With specific regard to the infamous question #46, we agreed that unit cohesion would evaporate. Officers who gave the order would make their widows rich, and the most serious threat to the public would be the ensuing firefight between those refused to confiscate firearms, and the bullet-bait who would.

An important distinction discussed regarding the results of the Combat Arms Survey was the age of the respondents and their acceptance of foreign control of U.S. forces. The younger the respondent (in other words; the lesser the pay grade of the respondent), the more amenable he was to Operations Other Than War and non-traditional missions, including U.N. operational control over U.S. forces. this was true of both officers and enlisted men.

During the interview we commented that an individual marking an opinion space in a questionnaire merely indicated the opinion of that individual, but was not indicative of whether that individual would, or would not, follow illegal or immoral orders, or perform a mission he had strong personal misgivings about, and that, for the most part, despite personal misgivings, soldiers would follow orders regardless of the legality , morality, or constitutionality of those orders.

LCDR Cunningham conceded that such distinctions were outside the scope of the Combat Arms Survey, but that the margin responses to certain questions indicated that the long term result of compliance with questionable orders would eventually result in intra-unit factionalism and destroy unit cohesion.

LCDR Cunningham further related that the most frightening statistic of the Combat Arms Survey was the number of "No Opinion" responses to a number of questions, most significantly to question #46.

Twelve percent of respondents answered "No Opinion" when asked if they would fire on American citizens who refused to surrender their firearms. Including the total who responded that they WOULD fire on Americans (26.34 percent), and given the fact that those with no opinion on moral issues will mindlessly do what they are told, over 38 percent of those ordered to fire Americans refusing to surrender their firearms would do so.

We objected that even those who had a moral aversion to following illegal orders would do so, either out of a sense of duty, or for no more substantial reason than the preservation of their military careers, and that the percentage of those who would fire on Americans, even if they disagreed with the order to do so, was probably significantly higher than 50 percent.

We further objected that the personal opinions of officers who would give the orders relied less on their willingness to issue, or ensure the successful execution of, immoral orders, than their desire to achieve a one or two block on their OER. LCDR Cunningham agreed in principle that "careerism' had the logical consequence of diluting moral responsibility, but could offer no substantive evidence to the extent of impact of careerism on unit cohesion based solely on his thesis or research.

Although we do not agree with some of LCDR Cunningham's premises regarding the constitutionality, or desirability, of even benign Operations Other Than War, particularly the bifurcation of the U.S. military into national defense and peacekeeping forces--as a result of our interview, and review of his thesis--we find no justification for anybody questioning his patriotism.

LCDR Cunningham's thesis was purely a research effort to determine the long term effects of Operations Other Than War and non- traditional missions on both horizontal cohesion (how the unit coalesces, supports itself, and performs as an integrated whole), and vertical cohesion (trust and confidence in the unit's leadership).

I'd like to see a new one also. I remember this, and I always wondered if it were the Military either trying to weed out potential misfits and nuts, or grazing the ranks for dependable troops if they found it necessary for a coup against Bill Clinton.

14
posted on 03/01/2004 5:37:37 AM PST
by theDentist
(Boston: So much Liberty, you can buy a Politician already owned by someone else.)

Wow! I can't get over your immediate and complete response to this request.

The Clintons probably had it floated it our there as a trial balloon to see whether it would fly. That is how they operated. It never would have gone out without someone sanctioning it from the Clinton Administration. A young officer in the Marines would never take a liberty like that on his own. The Clinton Administration found some military 'suck ups' and 'kiss a$$es' to do its dirty work.

Every one should remember this veiled Stalinesque attempt by the Democrats to test the waters on the confiscation of firearms.

or grazing the ranks for dependable troops if they found it necessary for a coup against Bill Clinton.

Liberal supporters aren't much on being armed. More likely they want an idea if the troops can be counted on to support a cancellation of the US Constitution and the disarming of the citizens it would take to maintain such an action. I'd say only a small percentage would be required, form them into units and augment them with ATF, DEA and other federal outfits already screened for the proper response.

20
posted on 03/01/2004 5:48:46 AM PST
by steve50
("Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -H. L. Mencken)

Playing innocent huh. Figures. Sorry but if anyone's been causing bodies to pile up in this country its Bush's refusal to enforce immigration law. Contrary to those who wear rose colored glasses, illegals are inciting quite a bit of crime including murder and rape. Those of us who call Bush on his neglect aren't the bad guys.

While in the Army in the late 1960's we trained for riot control at Fort Belvoir in Maryland. Most of the training consisted of advancing in formations with bayonets unsheathed. We were told if called to cope with a riot, we would have a limited amount of ammunition. We were on alert for riot response on the east coast in the First Army. We also were told the Army had seven levels of force they would apply to get control. The last level was the firing of bullets which required permission from authorities high up and was considered very unlikely. I got the sense we were going to slug it out in hand to hand combat. We had very little body armour. Our helmet liners were it.

Shortly after I left the Army, National Guard troops fired on students at Kent State. I had the feeling that the National Guard of those days was made up of less disciplined soldiers, and they panicked.

To all who complain about GWB....Why complain about the Presidential Election when Congress is America's biggest enemy? The voters keep electing the same "hogs at the trough" congressmen over and over. Blame Bush for Iraq yet tip toe around the fact that only Congress can approve a war. BUSH 2004!!

Our professional military does know right from wrong. However the risk to military firing on US Citizens comes from the civilian leadership.

No military operations will ever occur in the US without the approval, ROE, and Mission statement coming directly from the President and the SECDEF along with civilian branch secretaries.

So if for some unforseen reason the "military" ever does fire on US citizens you can be assured that the fault lies in the electorate.

This is an often overlooked facet in the decision making process known as voting. If you don't know what a person stands for and believes you shouldn't vote for them. But there are whole segments of our country that votes for someone because they were told to. I don't pity them in the least when they get what they ask for.

The survey may or may not have been a myth. But what is not a myth is the fact that at least one policeman that I know flat out stated that he would shoot it out with his own father if an order came down to confiscate all firearms.

"How many would fire on people declared 'terrorists' by their superiors?"

What percentage of 'new Americans' do we have in Iraq now? I recall reading the figure was something around 25%. What percentage of these 'new Americans' understand the Constitution, specifically the 2nd Amendment?

43
posted on 03/01/2004 7:33:46 AM PST
by B4Ranch
(Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.--Eleanor Roosevelt)

> Consider the following statement: > > "I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of > firearms banned by the United States government."

The police are nearer to doing that than the US military. What do you think the answers to that question would be if asked of the police? After all, they do it already in many parts of the US. My guess is 90% or more of the police would fire on civilians who would not give up their guns.

A few might take early retirement. Fewer still might refuse their orders and get fired. But most would do what the police in New York, Washington DC, Chicago, much of California and other places do right now. Fire on gunowners.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.